Stuart Mackey wrote:
That sounds like semantics. Once you define yourself as an empire, maintaining that status quo is, in itself, imperialism.
It isn't semantics. Status quo actions and behavior are inherently different and those definitions are what IR scholars use to define the behavior between nations.
Maintaining the status quo is never imperialism even if that power defines itself as an empire. Status quo and imperialism are contradictory statements because since the definition of imperialism is changing the status quo.
The main difference that separates status quo and imperialist policies is that in the case of imperialism the actor has a lot to gain, in the case of status quo the actor has a lot to lose.
The US was very much status quo during the cold war, it's main objective was to soldify it's position as superpower and prevent the USSR from damaging that position. It didn't really become imperialist until after the USSR faded away, it's main objective now is to enhance it's superpower status to the point that no force on Earth could challenge the might of the US, which is hegemony, the ultimate imperialist goal.
America is the most conspicuous, but not the only political power, as many of its critics are content to have their audience believe. There are others out there who have something more than mere hopes and dreams.
Russia’s relationship with the CIS is, for example, unquestionably imperialistic in nature. The Chinese, too, possess an empire in the form of Tibet, and have strained perennially to exert influence in North Korea, Vietnam, and Central Asia, among other locales. The French are still angling for financial domination in their African colonies, and attempts at securing regional hegemony have marred the Persian Gulf since the 1970s.
Unfortunately, the U.S. system of government makes it very difficult overall for it to continue to carry out a policy of hegemony. The best way to direct that policy is through the executive branch. Unfortunately, with changes in government on the scale of 4 to 8 years, there is really no chance for a sustained policy that brings about such a hegemony.
Case in point, do you think Clinton's policy aimed toward hegemony? I seriously doubt it. You could make an argument that Bush's policies aimed along that direction, but the problem is the following. Unless he manages to change the constitution, Bush is done in 08 at the latest. So, unless you have an entire series of leaders aiming along the same direction, hegemony gets to be difficult.
Especially true when the next guy in line could possibly withdraw U.S. commitments around the world at will. (yes, Congress has ways to keep the U.S. forces from engaging in wars or be deployed in the field, but I don't think they have the ability to direct the U.S. forces out in the field until the executive branch went along and gave the order)
This could be somewhat of a conundrum for a lot of Bush detractors. On the one hand, "everyone" knows he is a moron, heck, Curious George has a higher IQ, right? Yet somehow, he is simultaneously the most diabolical man around shaping the future of the U.S. policies in a way that even after he is out of office that the U.S. hegemony becomes inevitable. Heh, somehow, a diabolical moron just seem to be a bit of a contradiction.
Stuart Mackey wrote:
That sounds like semantics. Once you define yourself as an empire, maintaining that status quo is, in itself, imperialism.
It isn't semantics. Status quo actions and behavior are inherently different and those definitions are what IR scholars use to define the behavior between nations.
Maintaining the status quo is never imperialism even if that power defines itself as an empire. Status quo and imperialism are contradictory statements because since the definition of imperialism is changing the status quo.
The main difference that separates status quo and imperialist policies is that in the case of imperialism the actor has a lot to gain, in the case of status quo the actor has a lot to lose.
Ahh, so holding a nation/country in thrall is not imperial if the imperial nation is not expanding..riiight. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it igores the reality of the people who live withing such a system. A nation becomes imperialist when it takes that to which it has no right.
The US was very much status quo during the cold war, it's main objective was to soldify it's position as superpower and prevent the USSR from damaging that position. It didn't really become imperialist until after the USSR faded away, it's main objective now is to enhance it's superpower status to the point that no force on Earth could challenge the might of the US, which is hegemony, the ultimate imperialist goal.
The US became imperial the moment it annexed to itself people that did not freely join of their own accord, the Cold War has no bearing on that.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
The US became imperial the moment it annexed to itself people that did not freely join of their own accord, the Cold War has no bearing on that.
Indeed, but one must always remember: there is no nation on the face of the planet not just as guilty as the United States in that regard.
Yes, my own nation has done the same as the US..albeit on a smaller scale and to a lesser degree in regards to policies. However that most nations have behaved poorly, cannot excuse a nation for doing something that is manifestly wrong.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
I don't really find anything bad about being called an Empire. Its prestigious. Not all empires are bad. We are better than most. We could be better, but that isn't human nature.
I don't really find anything bad about being called an Empire. Its prestigious. Not all empires are bad. We are better than most. We could be better, but that isn't human nature.
Do you understand what empire actually are and how they get to be empires?
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
Stuart Mackey wrote:
That sounds like semantics. Once you define yourself as an empire, maintaining that status quo is, in itself, imperialism.
It isn't semantics. Status quo actions and behavior are inherently different and those definitions are what IR scholars use to define the behavior between nations.
Maintaining the status quo is never imperialism even if that power defines itself as an empire. Status quo and imperialism are contradictory statements because since the definition of imperialism is changing the status quo.
The main difference that separates status quo and imperialist policies is that in the case of imperialism the actor has a lot to gain, in the case of status quo the actor has a lot to lose.
Ahh, so holding a nation/country in thrall is not imperial if the imperial nation is not expanding..riiight. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it igores the reality of the people who live withing such a system. A nation becomes imperialist when it takes that to which it has no right.
The US was very much status quo during the cold war, it's main objective was to soldify it's position as superpower and prevent the USSR from damaging that position. It didn't really become imperialist until after the USSR faded away, it's main objective now is to enhance it's superpower status to the point that no force on Earth could challenge the might of the US, which is hegemony, the ultimate imperialist goal.
The US became imperial the moment it annexed to itself people that did not freely join of their own accord, the Cold War has no bearing on that.
Expaniding does not necessarily equal imperialism because expanding may not necessary effect the status quo in a significant way to alter the balance of power.
Accquiring an empire and holding on to an empire are two different things. One is usually imperialist, the other is not.
Take for instance China, taking Tibet could be considered an imperialist act (though that is in doubt since Tibet was so unimportant to the international system that hardly any change in the status quo could be demonstrated from it's absorption into the Chinese state.) However if Tibet were to revolt today and China tried to maintain control, that would not be imperialism because China's aims are to maintain control of Tibet, maintain the existing status quo.
Lets add another factor. Say the US decided to aid the Tibetans in thier fight for freedom.
1.) If the US aim is simply to liberate Tibet and see it's people free, then the US action is not imperialist.
2.) However if the US decides to help liberate Tibet because such an act would alter the balance of power in Asia in favor of the US, then that would be an imperialist act, even if an act of good is being done (freeing Tibet)
This also demonstrates that Imperialism is not necessarily bad, and non imperilaism is not necessarily good.
China butchering thousands of Tibetans to maintain thier empire is not imperialist, but nobudy (except perhaps the old thugs in the Chinese politburo) would possibly consider such an act to be a good thing.
Unfortunately, the U.S. system of government makes it very difficult overall for it to continue to carry out a policy of hegemony. The best way to direct that policy is through the executive branch. Unfortunately, with changes in government on the scale of 4 to 8 years, there is really no chance for a sustained policy that brings about such a hegemony.
Case in point, do you think Clinton's policy aimed toward hegemony? I seriously doubt it. You could make an argument that Bush's policies aimed along that direction, but the problem is the following. Unless he manages to change the constitution, Bush is done in 08 at the latest. So, unless you have an entire series of leaders aiming along the same direction, hegemony gets to be difficult.
Especially true when the next guy in line could possibly withdraw U.S. commitments around the world at will. (yes, Congress has ways to keep the U.S. forces from engaging in wars or be deployed in the field, but I don't think they have the ability to direct the U.S. forces out in the field until the executive branch went along and gave the order)
This could be somewhat of a conundrum for a lot of Bush detractors. On the one hand, "everyone" knows he is a moron, heck, Curious George has a higher IQ, right? Yet somehow, he is simultaneously the most diabolical man around shaping the future of the U.S. policies in a way that even after he is out of office that the U.S. hegemony becomes inevitable. Heh, somehow, a diabolical moron just seem to be a bit of a contradiction.
Hegemony doesn't require direct military action. It is not necessary to wage war in order to become a hegemon.
Hegemony is simply being so powerful that no other force can oppose you.
The US is rapidly approaching that point. The Iraq war has proved that the US can act regardless of what the rest of the world thinks, for good or for ill, and thier is nothing that any opposing force can do about it.
I would say that 9/11 has given the US an excuse to expediate hegemonic claims.
Naturally other countries don't want a hegemon to arise, so they act to counter balance it. Which is why I predict that the EU and Red China will make counter balancing US power with thier own to be more of a priority. Espescially since US hegemony will put a damper on China's own imperialist designs.
Lord MJ wrote:
Expaniding does not necessarily equal imperialism because expanding may not necessary effect the status quo in a significant way to alter the balance of power.
Accquiring an empire and holding on to an empire are two different things. One is usually imperialist, the other is not.
Take for instance China, taking Tibet could be considered an imperialist act (though that is in doubt since Tibet was so unimportant to the international system that hardly any change in the status quo could be demonstrated from it's absorption into the Chinese state.) However if Tibet were to revolt today and China tried to maintain control, that would not be imperialism because China's aims are to maintain control of Tibet, maintain the existing status quo.
Lets add another factor. Say the US decided to aid the Tibetans in thier fight for freedom.
1.) If the US aim is simply to liberate Tibet and see it's people free, then the US action is not imperialist.
2.) However if the US decides to help liberate Tibet because such an act would alter the balance of power in Asia in favor of the US, then that would be an imperialist act, even if an act of good is being done (freeing Tibet)
This also demonstrates that Imperialism is not necessarily bad, and non imperilaism is not necessarily good.
China butchering thousands of Tibetans to maintain thier empire is not imperialist, but nobudy (except perhaps the old thugs in the Chinese politburo) would possibly consider such an act to be a good thing.
A nation taking something to which it has no right, is imperialism..so you are saying that once an empire has it, the act of holding on to it is not imperialism ? come on..
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
I'm not sure I agree with you on the fact that the U.S. can act regardless of what the rest of the world thought. The very fact that it is a democracy hinders that prospect.
If you're speaking of hegemony in economic terms, I won't argue too much, but would that necessarily be a bad thing? Without a doubt, U.S. corporations has vastly influenced the world, but I'd say overall, that influence has been a net positive in terms of raising the standards of living. So, I'd rate that as a good thing. But even then, the law of economics must apply, manufacturing as a whole will be swinging more and more out of the U.S., the same is true for R&D. But is that a positive effect for the rest of the world. The answer I think is yes.
Consider Japan, Europe, China, et al. Their companies do not compete nearly as openly as the U.S. companies. The closest are the Japanese corporations which after substantial aid from the government in the form of MITI has mostly started standing on its own.
The simple fact is, the U.S. do not engage in nearly as many protectionist policies as other nations, there are no substantial subsidies or political barriers in the U.S. for all except the weakest of industries, such as steel, and some farming industries.(which I think should be allowed to die off anyway, but that's a political consideration)
Contrast that to the EU for example, within the EU, there are no trade barriers, but if you try to get in EU, you are faced with a host of regulations and protectionist policies. Same for markets in China, etc, etc. The point I'm making is there the perception of U.S. hegemony (outside of military capacity) is simply wrong. Unless you're telling me all of the U.S. corporations have systematically conspired to become the dominant factor in world economy with the backing of the government.
And realistically, in a democracy, it is difficult to set such an overriding set of policies which would need decades to produce results. Especially due to the change in executive branch every 4 or 8 years.
But having said that, we come back to a simple effect that when you're the top dog, in terms of military or economics, everyone will take a shot at you. This of course goes well with your last statement, except it's not so much counterbalance, more an attempt to achieve hegemony for these national entities themselves.
Counterbalance sound like everyone gets to equilibrium, and we're all happy. And I seriously doubt if that's what everyone else has in mind. Of course, for that, I point to the simple fact that if someone were to magically offer any nation the status of being foremost power in the world, the people of that nation would be totally crazy to reject the offer.
Lord MJ wrote:
A nation taking something to which it has no right, is imperialism..so you are saying that once an empire has it, the act of holding on to it is not imperialism ? come on..
Imperialism has nothing to do with a nation's rights. Imperialism is simply determined by the status quo, rights have nothing to do with it.
Taking something that one has no right to may be immoral but it is not necessarily imperialistic.
Lord MJ wrote:
A nation taking something to which it has no right, is imperialism..so you are saying that once an empire has it, the act of holding on to it is not imperialism ? come on..
Imperialism has nothing to do with a nation's rights. Imperialism is simply determined by the status quo, rights have nothing to do with it.
Taking something that one has no right to may be immoral but it is not necessarily imperialistic.
Rights have everything to do with it. No nation has the right to take that which does not belong to it. And for better or for worse that is what imperialism means today. Holding on to something, by whatever means, that a nation took is imperialism as you are holdin something that blongs to another. Rights are intrincically bound up with morality.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
However that most nations have behaved poorly, cannot excuse a nation for doing something that is manifestly wrong.
But that's just the problem. So many are content to meet out criticism of one in particular, ignorant of their own experience.
No. People are happy to meet out crtitisim to hypocrites who preach one and practice the other.
I do not deny the actions of my nations past, good or bad, but I also condemn my government if it does something which would be unethical, immoral or illegal here in NZ.
The issue with the US is that it pounds out the freedom and democracy bit, yet supports/installs those who do the exact opposite. Because of its power, people feel that America should not do that, and thats what people dont like.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
No. People are happy to meet out crtitisim to hypocrites who preach one and practice the other.
Which is why literal millions gathered to criticize Bush, but never spent a fraction so much time or effort challenging Russia’s activities in Chechnya or China’s in Tibet, yes?
Nobody can afford to espouse democracy to the hilt. The public likes very much a good, principled stand for the sake of idealistic satisfaction; no government in the world actually shares those same ideas no matter how much it plays up to them. Of course, the reality is that such happy conclusions are often impossible; we must choose one evil to embrace rather than another in every case.
Cornelius wrote:I just checked. The president does not have the power to declare war like i thought. Only the senate can do that. THe president has the ability to act quickly without the direct persmission of the Senate in dire circumstances or when war is already declared. This power, however, is very limited in the time it is applicable. I was wrong about the month. Troops have to be withdrawn or given senate approvale within 60 days. If there was no significant threat, severe punishments will be enacted upon the president.
Of course, the last declared war was by Roosevelt back in 1941. That's right, we haven't been at war for 63 years. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I and II, Afghanistan...all were fought without the Congressional declaration of war. Damn peaceful half century, no?
(yes, I'm feeling cynical right now...)
Stanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
and to a lesser degree in regards to policies. However that most nations have behaved poorly, cannot excuse a nation for doing something that is manifestly wrong.
